NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
204 reportsClear category filter74,635 miles · Mar 14, 2006
Suspension
2001 MERCURY SABLE LS TIRE BLEW OUT. THE FRONT COIL SPRING AND STRUT ASSEMBLY FRACTURED, PIERCING THE TIRE. THIS CAUSED THE TIRE INSIDE WALL TO SHRED. *TS THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR REPAIRS. THE CONSUMER LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE FRONT COIL SPRING HAD BEEN RECALLED. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MAN…
Read full complaint
2001 MERCURY SABLE LS TIRE BLEW OUT. THE FRONT COIL SPRING AND STRUT ASSEMBLY FRACTURED, PIERCING THE TIRE. THIS CAUSED THE TIRE INSIDE WALL TO SHRED. *TS THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR REPAIRS. THE CONSUMER LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE FRONT COIL SPRING HAD BEEN RECALLED. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER WHO ADVISED HER TO CONTACT THE LOCAL DEALER AND SUBMIT THE INVOICE FOR REIMBURSEMENT. THE INVOICE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER BUT THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THE REPAIR WERE NOT MADE BY THEM OR AT ANOTHER FORD DEALER. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10154069
15,200 miles · Feb 28, 2006
Suspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 5 MPH IT FELT AS IF THE PARKING BRAKE WAS ON. UPON INSPECTION, THE CONTACT NOTICED THE WHEEL WELLS WERE RESTING ON THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY DETERMINED THE FRONT DRIVER AND REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRINGS WAS FRACTURED. THE FRON…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 5 MPH IT FELT AS IF THE PARKING BRAKE WAS ON. UPON INSPECTION, THE CONTACT NOTICED THE WHEEL WELLS WERE RESTING ON THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY DETERMINED THE FRONT DRIVER AND REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRINGS WAS FRACTURED. THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED UNDER RECALL, BUT THE REAR COIL SPRINGS WERE NOT REPAIRED. THE REAR COILS SPRINGS WERE REAPIRED UNDER THE RECALL AS WELL. UPDATED 03/28/06. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10151387
82,994 miles · Feb 27, 2006
Suspension
ON 2/22/06 THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING ON MY 2001 MERCURY SABLE FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING AT 30 M.P.H. ON A SMOOTH PAVED ROADWAY. THE SABLE HAS JUST OVER 80,000 MILES. WHEN THE COIL SPRING FRACTURED, IT CAUSED SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE BRAND NEW TIRE, LEAVING IT UNUSABLE. I WAS ADVISED BY MERCURY, THE WOULD NOT COVER R…
Read full complaint
ON 2/22/06 THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING ON MY 2001 MERCURY SABLE FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING AT 30 M.P.H. ON A SMOOTH PAVED ROADWAY. THE SABLE HAS JUST OVER 80,000 MILES. WHEN THE COIL SPRING FRACTURED, IT CAUSED SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE BRAND NEW TIRE, LEAVING IT UNUSABLE. I WAS ADVISED BY MERCURY, THE WOULD NOT COVER REPAIR COST BECAUSE THERE IS NO OPEN RECALL FOR THE REAR SPRINGS, JUST THE FRONT. I AM IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING A NEW SPRING ($50 )& TIRE ($150). IT WILL COST $80 IN LABOR TO MAKE REPAIRS & $45 FOR AN ALIGNMENT. TOTAL COST TO ME: $325!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *JB
NHTSA ODI #10151284
110,900 miles · Feb 21, 2006
Suspension
RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING BROKEN. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10150739
30,753 miles · Feb 17, 2006
Suspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING IN NORMAL CONDITIONS AT 15 MPH, A NOISE WAS HEARD IN THE RIGHT REAR TIRE WELL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE DEALER DISCOVERED THE RIGHT REAR SPRING FRACTURED, BROKE IN HALF AND RUBBED A 360 DEGREE GROOVE ON THE TIRE. THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH REAR SPRINGS AND RE…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING IN NORMAL CONDITIONS AT 15 MPH, A NOISE WAS HEARD IN THE RIGHT REAR TIRE WELL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE DEALER DISCOVERED THE RIGHT REAR SPRING FRACTURED, BROKE IN HALF AND RUBBED A 360 DEGREE GROOVE ON THE TIRE. THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH REAR SPRINGS AND REAR TIRES TO ENSURE ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES. UPDATED 3/17/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10150516
55,000 miles · Feb 13, 2006
Suspension
WHILE AT MY MERCURY DEALER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND TIRE ROTATION I WAS INFORMED BY THE SERVICE REP THE DRIVERS SIDE REAR COIL SPRING WAS FRACTURED/BROKEN AND CONTINUED USE COULD RESULT IN PUNCTURED REAR TIRE AND A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE VEHICLE WHICH I PURCHASED NEW AND HAS 55,000 MILES ON IT. I HAVE NO IDEA…
Read full complaint
WHILE AT MY MERCURY DEALER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND TIRE ROTATION I WAS INFORMED BY THE SERVICE REP THE DRIVERS SIDE REAR COIL SPRING WAS FRACTURED/BROKEN AND CONTINUED USE COULD RESULT IN PUNCTURED REAR TIRE AND A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE VEHICLE WHICH I PURCHASED NEW AND HAS 55,000 MILES ON IT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THE COIL SPRINGS FAILED. THE SERVICE REP SUGGESTED REPLACING BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS, BOTH REAR STRUTS AND STABILIZER RODS THE COST OF WHICH WOULD BE $610!! THE SUGGESTION TO REPLACE BOTH REAR SPRINGS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THE ONE BROKEN SPRING IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT! AFTER LOOKING AT THE COMPLAINTS ON THIS SITE REGARDING SIMILAR COMPLAINTS WITH THE COIL SPRINGS I'M CONVINCED FORD IS WELL AWARE OF THE INFERIOR QUALITY COIL SPRINGS THEY HAVE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES. THE RECALL FOR THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRINGS ARE OF THE SAME INFERIOR QUALITY AND PRESENT A DANGEROUS SITUATION WHICH FORD HAS ELECTED TO IGNORE. I WILL NO DOUBT GRUDINGLY HAVE THE REPAIR DONE BUT WILL NO LONGER TRUST OR PURCHASE THE FORD PRODUCT LINE WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I DO LIKE MY SABLE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10150172
59,777 miles · Feb 6, 2006
Suspension
WHILE EATING BREAKFAST, MY WIFE HEARD A METAL POPPING SOUND OUTSIDE NEAR OUR 2001 MERCURY SABLE. WHEN SHE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE, SHE FOUND A PIECE OF THE REAR RIGHT COIL SPRING. THIS HAPPENED MINUTES BEFORE SHE WAS TO LEAVE WITH OUR CHILDREN. I CONTACTED FORD AND THE DEALER AND WAS LEFT TO PAY FOR THE TOWING AND REPAIRS $80 & …
Read full complaint
WHILE EATING BREAKFAST, MY WIFE HEARD A METAL POPPING SOUND OUTSIDE NEAR OUR 2001 MERCURY SABLE. WHEN SHE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE, SHE FOUND A PIECE OF THE REAR RIGHT COIL SPRING. THIS HAPPENED MINUTES BEFORE SHE WAS TO LEAVE WITH OUR CHILDREN. I CONTACTED FORD AND THE DEALER AND WAS LEFT TO PAY FOR THE TOWING AND REPAIRS $80 & $303.99 FOR A TOTAL OF $383.99. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. THE FIRST BEING A FRONT COIL SPRING AND TIRE WHICH WAS BLOWN OUT THEN SUBSEQUENTLY REPLACED BY FORD ON A RECALL. I FIND IT DISTURBING THAT THE SPRINGS WITH THE SAME FAULTY METAL WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THE REAR SUSPENSION AND NOT REPLACED. TWICE MY FAMILY HAS AVERTED DISASTER CONNECTED WITH THESE COIL SPRINGS. WHEN IS FORD GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND REPLACE ALL THESE FAULTY SPRINGS? MAYBE AFTER ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE INJURED OR DIE! *JB
NHTSA ODI #10149582
74,000 miles · Feb 3, 2006
Suspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOP TO DRIVING 2 MPH THERE WAS A LOUD NOISE AND A RUBBING SOUND COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS SEEN BY AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THE LEFT REAR COIL SPRINGS WAS BROKEN AND RUBBED INTO THE TIRE. BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT REAR COIL …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOP TO DRIVING 2 MPH THERE WAS A LOUD NOISE AND A RUBBING SOUND COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS SEEN BY AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THE LEFT REAR COIL SPRINGS WAS BROKEN AND RUBBED INTO THE TIRE. BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT REAR COIL SPRINGS, LEFT TIRE AND STRUTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. UPDATED 2/21/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149386
53,000 miles · Jan 29, 2006
Suspension
REAR DRIVER'S SIDE COIL SPRING BROKE WHILE BACKING OUT OF GARAGE. THE SPRING WAS WITHIN 1/4" OF POKING MY TIRE. MY MERCURY HAS 53,000 MILES. THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS HAVE A RECALL BUT NOT THE REAR!?!?! I AM SURE GLAD THAT IT HAPPENED IN MY DRIVEWAY.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10148957
52,400 miles · Jan 11, 2006
Suspension
WHILE DRIVING ON A BUSY TOLL WAY I HEARD SOME STRANGE NOISES -- A LOUD BANGING AND SCRAPING OR RUBBING. IN LESS THAN A MINUTE, MY RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEW OUT. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER TO CHANGE THE TIRE. WHEN I REMOVED THE TIRE, IT HAD A GROOVE CUT INTO THE INNER SIDEWALL WITH A PUNCTURE IN THE GROOVE. I EXAMINED THE WHEEL-WELL…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON A BUSY TOLL WAY I HEARD SOME STRANGE NOISES -- A LOUD BANGING AND SCRAPING OR RUBBING. IN LESS THAN A MINUTE, MY RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEW OUT. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER TO CHANGE THE TIRE. WHEN I REMOVED THE TIRE, IT HAD A GROOVE CUT INTO THE INNER SIDEWALL WITH A PUNCTURE IN THE GROOVE. I EXAMINED THE WHEEL-WELL TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE AND SAW A PIECE OF THE COIL SPRING STICKING OUT. I TOOK THE CAR DIRECTLY TO THE DEALER WHO INFORMED ME THAT THE COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND THAT BOTH REAR SPRINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I ASKED WHAT WOULD CAUSE THAT AND HE TOLD ME THAT USUALLY IT WAS DUE TO CORROSION. I REMEMBERED THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH THE COIL SPRING CORROSION FAILURE BUT THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THE RECALL APPLIED ONLY TO THE FRONT SPRINGS (THOUGH SURELY THE FRONT AND REAR SPRINGS WOULD BE MADE FROM THE SAME METAL). HE FURTHER TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE FORD PARTS FOR NEARLY A WEEK BUT HE COULD GET 3RD-PARTY PARTS IMMEDIATELY, THOUGH AT A HIGHER PRICE. I COULD NOT AFFORD TO GO A WEEK WITHOUT MY CAR (AND GIVEN THAT THE FORD PARTS HAD FAILED AT FIVE YEARS WITH ONLY 50000 MILES, PERHAPS A NEW FORD PART WOULDN'T REALLY BE THAT MUCH OF A BARGAIN) SO I OPTED FOR THE AFTERMARKET SPRINGS. THEY REPLACED BOTH SPRINGS WITH THE AFTERMARKET PARTS BUT AFTERWARDS THE CAR DID NOT HANDLE CORRECTLY AND CONTINUED TO MAKE LOUD PERCUSSIVE SOUNDS WHEN GOING OVER EVEN MODEST ROAD IRREGULARITIES. I TOOK THE CAR BACK A FEW DAYS LATER AND THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT BOTH REAR STRUTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, ADDING THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY DAMAGED WHEN THE SPRING BROKE. AFTER THE NEW STRUTS WERE INSTALLED THE CAR SEEMS TO BE MOSTLY BACK TO NORMAL. THE TOTAL FOR ALL REPAIRS WAS AROUND $1000, PLUS I SPENT ANOTHER $120 ON A NEW TIRE AND $70 FOR CAR RENTAL WHILE WAITING ON REPAIRS. I DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THE OLD PARTS AVAILABLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10147399
Official recalls
8Jul 15, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS COULD FRACTURE DUE TO CORROSION ASSOCIATED WITH SALT USED ON THE ROADWAYS DURING THE WINTER. A FRACTURED SPRING COULD MOVE PAST THE SPRING SEAT AND CONTACT A FRONT TIRE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE TIRE MAY RUPTURE RESULTING IN A RAPID AIR LOSS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL PROTECTIVE SPRING SHIELDS. IN ADDITION, FORD IS EXTENDING THE WARRANTY COVERAGE OF THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS IN ALL OTHER STATES, FOR FRACTURE ONLY, UP TO 10 YEARS OF SERVICE OR 150,000 MILES, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. IF THE VEHICLE HAS ALREADY ACCUMULATED MORE THAN 150,000 MILES, THIS COVERAGE WILL LAST UNTIL JULY 31, 2005. IF EITHER FRONT COIL SPRING FRACTURES, DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH FRONT SPRINGS AT NO CHARGE TO THE OWNER. AN INTERIM NOTICE WAS SENT TO OWNERS ON AUGUST 2, 2004. PARTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE FOR THE 2000-2001 MY VEHICLES AND OWNERS WERE SENT A LETTER ON JANUARY 10, 2005, ADVISING THEM TO BRING IN THEIR VEHICLES FOR REPAIR PARTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 1999 MY VEHICLES BY THE END OF FEBRUARY 2005 AND OWNERS OF THESE VEHICLES WILL BE NOTIFIED THEN. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Mar 2, 2004
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES ARE BEING RECALLED TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH A MALFUNCTIONING STOP LAMP SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING. THIS MALFUNCTIONING COULD RENDER THE STOP LAMPS INOPERABLE OR CAUSE THEM TO STAY ON ALL THE TIME. THIS COULD CAUSE CONFUSION TO A FOLLOWING DRIVER, WHICH COULD LEAD TO A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN ADDITION, IF THE SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING FAIL IN THE OPEN POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL NOT ACTUATE AND THE DRIVER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE OUT OF "PARK" IF THEY FAIL IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL REMAIN ON, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW THE SPEED CONTROL TO BE ACTIVATED. THIS COULD ALSO CAUSE THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REMOVE THE STOP LAMP SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING ASSEMBLY AND INSTALL A NEWLY DESIGNED STOP LAMP SWITCH AND WIRE ASSEMBLY. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON APRIL 5, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Oct 2, 2002
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PADELS ARE BEING RECALLED IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO A MINIMUM OF 50 MM OF LATERAL SEPARATION. SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF BOTH THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN ENGINE RPM.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A CUSTOMER EXPERIENCING AN "UNINTENDED VEHICLE SPEED INCREASE" OR A PERCEIVED "UNABLE TO STOP" CONDITION.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED AS TO THE PROPER WAY TO SET THE POSITION OF THE PEDALS AND TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE SPACING BETWEEN THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS MEASURED. IF THE SPACING IS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 50 MM, THE DEALER WILL ADJUST THE PEDALS TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM TO GREATER THAN 50 MM. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN OCTOBER 28, 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Aug 8, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Apr 27, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS. THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE TONGUE MAY NOT FULLY EJECT FROM THE BUCKLE ASSEMBLY WHEN THE RELEASE BUTTON IS PUSHED SLOWLY. THIS CONDITION COULD ALSO RESULT IN A PARTIAL LATCH OF THE TONGUE IN THE BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A VEHICLE CRASH, THE VEHICLE OCCUPANT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER AND RIGHT FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MAY 4, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Mar 12, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. IF THE GREASE FROM THE ADJUSTABLE PEDAL ASSEMBLY ENTERS THE STOP LAMP SWITCH, IT CAN CONTAMINATE THE CONTACTS LEADING TO CARBON BUILD UP, AND POTENTIALLY, A SHORT CIRCUIT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A SHORT CIRCUIT COULD LEAD TO EITHER THE BRAKE LAMPS STAYING ON, OR TO A LOSS OF BRAKE LAMP FUNCTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE BRAKE LAMP SWITCH AND WIPE DOWN THE ADJUSTABLE PEDAL ASSEMBLY TO REMOVE EXCESS GREASE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 22, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." THE AFFECTED EXPEDITION/NAVIGATOR OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SEATING POSITIONS EQUIPPED WITH TETHER ANCHORAGES, AND DO NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THESE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE F150 SC OWNER GUIDES DO NOT PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE TAURUS/SABLE OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE CENTER REAR SEATING POSITION AS HAVING LATCH COMPATIBLE LOWER ANCHORAGES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE CHILD SEAT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ATTACHED INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE CHILD.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH OWNER GUIDE INSERTS REVISED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THESE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES. CUSTOMERS WILL ALSO BE ADVISED THAT IF THEY PREFER, THEIR DEALER WILL AFFIX THE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES.
Aug 24, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT ANCHOR LATCH (ISO-FIX ANCHOR) FASTENERS DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE RESIDUAL TORQUE. THE ANCHORS ARE SECURED TO THE FLOOR PAN WITH A REINFORCEMENT PLATE THAT HAS TWO STUDS THAT EXTEND UPWARD THROUGH THE FLOOR PAN AND THE ISO-FIX ANCHOR. THE SEALER ON THE FLOOR PAN COULD CAUSE A SOFT JOINT AND, EVEN IF THE NUTS ARE PROPERLY TORQUED, ROAD VIBRATIONS COULD CAUSE THE NUT TO WORK ITS WAY COMPLETELY OFF THE STUD.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE ANCHOR MAY NOT HOLD THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT IN POSITION DURING AN ACCIDENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REMOVE AND RE-INSTALL THE BRACKET NUT USING A TORQUE RETENTION MATERIAL (RED LOCTITE). OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 11, 2000. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
8PE12033 · Speed Control Cable Damage
Opened Oct 24, 2012 · Closed Jun 26, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cables; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
EA06002 · Rear Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Jan 24, 2006 · Closed Feb 5, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear; Suspension:rear:springs; Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Suspension:rear
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Suspension:rear:springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
PE05054 · Rear Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Sep 27, 2005 · Closed Jan 24, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear:springs; Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
Suspension:rear:springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
RP03001 · Brake/accelerator Pedal Application
Opened Oct 31, 2003 · Closed Mar 23, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:pedals And Linkages
MS. RODMAN REPORTED THAT AFTER HER VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED FOR THE RECALL, HER MOTHER EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN ACCELERATION AND CRASHED THE SABLE INTO A LIGHT POLE.PREVIOUSLY NHTSA HAD CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION FOR THIS ISSUE (PE02-035) THAT RESULTED IN THE RECALL (02V-266) OF 369,000 MY 2000-2002 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO INSURE THAT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PEDALS WAS AT LEAST 50MM..A REVIEW OF ODI'S DATABASE FOR COMPLAINTS REGARDING RECALL 02V-266 DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY RECALL REMEDY COMPLAINTS OTHER THAN THE PETITIONER'S.MS. RODMAN?S VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY ODI USING FORD?S SPECIAL TOOL AND HER VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO EXCEED 50MM.ALSO, THE LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE PEDALS WAS FOUND NOT TO BE EXCESSIVE RELATIVE TO OTHER COMPARABLE TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES.THEREFORE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING FORD TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT REMEDY FOR THIS DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS ANALYSIS, PLEASE REFER TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE DATED MARCH 23, 2004 (VOL 69, NO 56, PAGES 13619-13620).
RQ03008 · Brake Light Switch Failure
Opened Oct 23, 2003 · Closed Mar 5, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:brake Lights; Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
EA03010 · Frontal Air Bag NON-DEPLOYMENT In Crash
Opened Jul 2, 2003 · Closed Jun 23, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal
THIS INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF 427 REPORTS ALLEGING NON-DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS.OF THE 427 REPORTS, TWO INCIDENTS (FATAL CRASHES) HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SEVERE FRONTAL CRASHES IN WHICH THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY.A DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
PE03002 · Frontal Air Bag NON-DEPLOYMENT In Crash
Opened Jan 6, 2003 · Closed Jul 2, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal
FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAS IDENTIFIED 260 REPORTS ALLEGING FRONTAL AIR BAG NON-DEPLOYMENT FOR ANY (SEVERITY) FRONTAL OR NEAR-FRONTAL CRASH ON MODEL YEAR 2000-2001 FORD TAURUS AND MERCURY SABLE VEHICLES.ADDITIONAL CRASH REPORTS ARE CONTAINED IN NHTSA'S FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM (FARS) DATABASE.THE SINGLE ODI REPORT LISTED IN THE REPORT SUMMARY IS NHTSA'S SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATION'S CASE NO. CA00-020 THAT INVOLVED A HIGH-SPEED CRASH NON-DEPLOYMENT INVOLVING A DRIVER FATALITY AND FRONT PASSENGER INJURY.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA03-010) AND ODI WILL COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CERTAIN CRASH REPORTS AND CONDUCT FURTHER STUDY OF THIS ISSUE.
PE02035 · Brake/accel Pedal Separation
Opened Mar 15, 2002 · Closed Oct 22, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic
No summary supplied.
Illustration